Читать книгу Sustainable Asian House - Paul McGillick - Страница 5
ОглавлениеTHE STORY OF SUSTAINABILITY
Much has been written over the last twenty years or so about how residential architecture in Southeast Asia has explored strategies for working with the tropical climate. Note my use of the word ‘with’, because we are not talking here of ‘coping’ with the climate or ‘overcoming’ the climate, but of developing ways of adapting to the climate in order to achieve a sustainable way of life. This agenda has been driven by a desire to live more authentically by engaging with the natural world, by health issues such as the need to avoid unnaturally cold air-conditioned environments and the thermal shock of moving in and out of air-conditioning, and, above all, by the need to conserve energy and avoid unnecessary damage to the global ecosystem. The rapid evolution of such climatic strategies has resulted in an approach which could be almost deemed a celebration of the climate, replacing the previous implied idea that the tropical climate was somehow our enemy.
This has been part of a broader agenda which has been as much political, economic and social as it has been environmental. The aim has been to find ways to live appropriately in the contemporary, tropical world. This, in turn, implies the need for local solutions rather than those imposed from elsewhere—a one size fits all solution which, in architectural language, invariably means International modernism. Hence, terms like ‘tropical modern’ and ‘modern regional’ were used to pin down the emergence of architectural strategies which sought to adapt International modernism to a tropical climate and to local cultures. In other words, there was an attempt to preserve the universally applicable and beneficial aspects of International modernism while achieving an architecture appropriate for its place.
‘… a return to living in a culturally and climatically authentic way.’
The debate surrounding this agenda has commonly been framed against a colonial background. The imposition of foreign rule was understood to imply the imposition of many other things, including building types. Hence, political and economic emancipation suggested a broader emancipation, a whole new way of life based on traditional values and free of imposed Western values, a return to living in a culturally and climatically authentic way.
Then along came globalization. Now the world was becoming increasingly integrated economically and commercially, and with it came a kind of ‘mass cult’, yet another imposition of a uniform culture from elsewhere which had little regard for regional and cultural differences. Arguably, the new globalization was really only colonialism dressed up in new clothes, since the epicentres of the global economy, at least until the recent emergence of china and India as economic powerhouses, were still the former colonial capitals.
Colonialism can be viewed as an early form of globalization. It may have lacked the communications technology which now enables instantaneous communication throughout the world, the means of transport available may have been slower and more primitive, and the goods being traded may have been different, but the motivation was largely economic. While there were undoubtedly exceptions, it was usually a case of the flag following trade, with colonial rule evolving to protect the colonialists’ economic interests. Colonialism was, in fact, itself part of a broader phenomenon. It must be remembered that thailand was never colonized. Nor was Japan. China, while it may have been commercially bullied by the West, with the exception of several foreign enclaves situated in seaports, continued to govern itself. Yet, these countries, as much as those that were colonized, engaged with an international economy, adopted many Western cultural mores and, especially in the capital cities and seaports, became increasingly ‘Westernized’.
This introduction is not the place to expand any further on these issues. Nor do I wish to comprehensively discuss the recent evolution of the tropical Southeast Asian house. Robert Powell’s books (the key ones are listed in the Select Bibliography at the end of this book) do this with far more authority than I can offer, as does Amanda Achmadi’s fluent overviews of modern Indonesian architecture in 25 Tropical Houses in Indonesia (2006) and Houses for the 21st Century (2004).
I mention these matters mainly to show that things are a lot more complex than is sometimes suggested, but also to establish a slightly different context in which to discuss the houses selected for this book.
WHAT THIS BOOK IS ABOUT
When you see the word ‘sustainable’ in the title you will assume that we are looking at houses which are sustainable in the sense that they minimize their impact on their immediate physical environment as well as minimize their use of non-renewable resources (energy and materials) in the building and running of those houses—with the implication that they do so in a way that still enables a comfortable way of life and provides for the needs of a diverse range of inhabitants. You are right in this assumption. But the scope of the book is greater than that.
The Party House in Sentosa, Singapore (page 128), is a collection of coloured glass boxes designed to bring people together.
The Carphenie House in Kuala Lumpur (page 42) brings green space inside its bold, circular entry void, which is open to the sky.
‘… in this book I look at houses not just from the environmentally sustainable point of view, but also from the personal, social and cultural points of view.’
What we now call sustainability we used to call ecology. ‘Ecology’ may have been rather inexact, but it was very useful as a term because it drew attention to the world as an ecology, that is, a system in which all the constituent parts exist in relation to one another, and where any change to one part of the system will affect all the other parts.
Therefore, in this book I look at houses not just from the environmentally sustainable point of view, but also from the personal, social and cultural points of view. Hence, there are houses which are interesting mainly because of the environmental strategies employed. But there are others which are interesting for the ways in which, say, they sustain the extended family in the context of the ‘global village’. Or they may aim to sustain cultural traditions, including crafts, which are increasingly under threat.
The 27 houses featured in the book have also been carefully selected to show how architecture is responding to changing demographics in Southeast Asian societies. With ever-accelerating urbanization as a result of both urban drift and natural population increase, and with new professions emerging all the time, there is a need for a wide range of accommodation in order to sustain changing lifestyles. For example, in contrast to their parents, a younger generation working in new professions may live by themselves or as childless couples and be keen to stay close to all the action associated with urban centres. The growing middle class is also producing smaller families, replacing the large families of the past and accordingly requiring different kinds of accommodation.
The point is that a home is the most crucial way in which we sustain ourselves. to be homeless is to live an unsustainable life. Not only do we all need a home, we all want one that will sustain us in our chosen way of life. But this sustainability is an integral part of an ecosystem. One aspect is how we live with the climate in a rational and responsible way. But it is just as important to put in place strategies which, for example, sustain the family, whether it be the nuclear family or the extended family, taking into account the differing needs of parents, children and grandparents, as well as their broader social needs. Often this is an issue of reconciling privacy and community. In the societies of Southeast Asia, community has traditionally taken precedence over privacy. However, with the super-charged growth of the technological global economy, demographics are changing and a new generation is demanding more privacy, but not necessarily at the cost of community. Hence, the question becomes: How do we design dwellings and their urban context so that the inhabitants can enjoy higher levels of privacy without losing that sense of familial and social community which has sustained tropical Asian communities in the past?
these are serious issues which contemporary architects are charged with addressing. But, at times in this book, I am also a little tongue in cheek. The Party House on Sentosa Island in Singapore may, for example, seem an unlikely inclusion in such a book, being a house devoted solely to having parties. But, apart from being a splendid piece of residential architecture, it does serve a genuinely sustainable purpose by sustaining social relations, and it does so in a remarkably imaginative way.
SUSTAINABLE LIVING IN THE TROPICS
The current preoccupation with environmentally sustainable domestic architecture in the tropics could lead us to overlook the fact that this has been going on for a long time, probably as long as human beings have lived in tropical climates. Vernacular architecture has long employed a variety of strategies to cope with a hot, humid climate. While different regions throughout Southeast Asia may have developed different characteristics, they also have a lot in common. High pitched roofs, wide eaves, air vents, timber shutters or blinds, courtyards, elevation off the ground and tiled flooring are some typical climate control strategies used in different ways throughout the region.
Vernacular forms evolved usually in response to demographic shifts, including immigration and colonization. The shophouse is a good example. It is found throughout the region, from thailand to Indonesia, in a variety of forms. Initially an imported phenomenon, it has been in Southeast Asia long enough to have become part of the urban vernacular. Its commercial function helped its environmental agenda. By locating the business at the front and domestic living in the centre and back of the building, a buffer from the sun was automatically provided for the inhabitants. Commonly, an internal courtyard and air-well provided further protection as well as generating air circulation. After losing many shophouses to demolition in the post-war development push, they are now often protected, and certainly sought after for their urban location and their potential for reinvention. The reworked shophouse is sustainable on a number of levels: it avoids demolition and rebuilding, it offers an existing programme of climate abatement, and it is a way of sustaining cultural heritage. At the same time, it exudes character. Sensitively handled, the reinvented shophouse provides a distinctive private home for contemporary living.
‘… contemporary climate-responsive Southeast Asian architecture is part of an ongoing evolution….’
The bungalow (from the Hindustani word bangala) is another imported form, brought to the Straits Settlements by British colonialists and evolving in a variety of ways, including the black-and-white house. Julian davison lists their climate abatement strategies: the timber and atap (thatch) upper storey absorbed heat slowly and protected the masonry ground floor, often tiled, from the heat; there was further protection from overhangs and blinds; a high roof profile created a chimney effect to draw hot air up and out through vents; it was raised on brick piers with ground floor air vents to generate air circulation. Davison concludes that ‘the black-and-white house was well-adapted to Singapore’s equatorial monsoon climate, turning what might have been simply a stylistic exercise—a local parody of the tudorbethan revival back in England—into a domestic architecture that was at once charming and also well suited to the environment’ (2006: 3).
Arguably, the post-war period throughout the region saw a retreat from climatically responsive architecture in favour of an imposed, compromised and reductionist version of modernism until the vernacular revival of the 1970s and 1980s saw a revisiting of traditional climate strategies.
The point is that contemporary climate-responsive Southeast Asian architecture is part of an ongoing evolution, a constant conversation, and a continuing ‘negotiation between foreign architectural ideas and the local context which includes lifestyle and culture, the tropical climate and traditional architectural vocabularies’ (duangrit Bunnag, 2003: 10).
HOUSE AND HOME
Let’s look now at the notion of sustainability from a slightly different perspective—from that of the home.
A house is not necessarily a home. A look at the kinds of metaphors we use is a clue to that. We talk about ‘housing’ something, meaning to put something into a container, but without any implication as to the quality of that container. But when we talk about feeling ‘at home’, there is a clear sense that we are now in a place where we feel comfortable, a place which is right for us.
A house is a shelter, offering protection. But a home is much more than simply a physical shelter. It sustains us emotionally, spiritually and culturally. The question therefore arises: In what ways does a house do this and to what extent can the design of the house assist?
‘… architecture can certainly facilitate that feeling of being at home.’
The great dutch architect and urbanist Aldo van Eyck once remarked that ‘architecture must facilitate man’s homecoming’. A beautiful house is no guarantee that it will also be a home. Equally, a house that is poorly designed does not necessarily prevent it from being a true home for its inhabitants. But the architecture of the structure can certainly facilitate that feeling of being at home.
What, then, makes a house a home? this requires that we look at the various functions of a home.
Frank Lloyd Wright famously said that a home needed to offer refuge and prospect. Let’s consider refuge first. At one time, the home was considered a refuge from potentially threatening interlopers. Indeed, this is still the case, and throughout Southeast Asia there is a heightened sense of threat from intruders which has led architects to design houses which frequently turn their back on the street, both as a defensive posture and as a tactic not to reveal what may be attractive to thieves. But this, at least, has the virtue of creating some exciting arrival sequences.
But the home today is also a refuge from an increasingly noisy, busy and intrusive world. It is a place to retreat to, an escape from the hectic everyday world outside. For some of the houses in this book, location alone helps to provide this refuge. For others, the planning provides insulation from the hyperactivity just outside the front door.
But hiding away in a box is neither pleasant nor healthy. Human beings need to be connected with the world, both physically and emotionally, whether it be the macro world outside or the micro world they create for themselves inside. Hence, the need for prospect—to look out on to something bigger, more airy, and especially to connect with the natural word. Again, there are houses in this book which are privileged by their location and enjoy such wonderful prospect out to a natural world, including their own gardens, that they are effectively a part of that landscape. Others need to borrow landscape, with architects adopting the traditional Japanese aesthetic of carefully framing views to the outside to create the illusion of being a part of a landscape without intrusion from the neighbouring non-natural world. This is nowhere more urgent than in an apartment, and the Brookvale Apartment in Singapore (page 74), the only apartment included in this book, is a perfect example.
Turning one’s back on an urban environment may mean creating one’s own internal landscape. Hence, the prospect may be out to an internal garden courtyard. Equally, it may involve internal prospect where the interior of the house itself becomes a landscape and any sense of containment is ameliorated by views across and through different interior spaces. This is a crucial element of the modernist approach which has been absorbed into the Asian house, namely, a plan of free-flowing spaces where the spaces are functionally distinguished only by partial or very subtle separation. If Asian models have been modified by this International modernist strategy, the strategy itself is often modified by another adaptation from Japan, namely, an internal prospect which has glimpses of external prospect in the form of small or slot windows on to miniature garden courtyards, and sometimes not so miniature, or even external, courtyards as with the carphenie House on the outskirts of Kuala Lumpur (page 42).
External prospect, however, is increasingly becoming more than simply visual connection. More and more often, the connection is literally physical, with the house connected directly to the outside landscape. This serves an environmental purpose, of course, because verandahs, extended overhangs, free-flowing interior spaces and breezeways generate cross-ventilation. But the separation of inside and outside is also becoming blurred. More and more frequently, the house embraces the outside landscape as an essential part of healthy living, both in the physical and in the emotional sense. Living with the tropical climate has been extended to celebrating and enjoying the tropical landscape rather than keeping it at arm’s length.
Arguably, International modernism had its origins not with the usual suspects like Le Corbusier, Mies van der Rohe and the Bauhaus, but with the Arts and crafts movement which flourished through the second half of the nineteenth century and into the 1930s and was exported from Britain to Europe and Asia—which would support my argument here that current sustainable practices in Southeast Asian houses are part of an ongoing evolution and an aspect of a continuing conversation between differing traditions. The black-and-white houses in Singapore and their Malaysian variants are obvious examples where there was a meeting of the Indian bungalow, local vernacular forms and Arts and crafts influences. The black-and-white houses are now heritage-protected and are commonly subject to highly sensitive retrofitting and restoration for contemporary living. Moreover, their sustainable features, such as free-flowing spaces, wide verandahs, extended eaves, cross-ventilation and air vents, are being adopted in many newly built houses.
The master bedroom in Sacha Cotture’s home in Manila (page 168) is set back from the front façade and screened by treated bamboo.
‘The importance of well-being is reflected in the emphasis on fresh air, natural light and spatial variety to accommodate individual needs.’
Significantly, the Arts and crafts movement emphasized issues which perfectly encapsulate the strategies of the contemporary sustainable Asian house. For example, new architectural approaches involve the reinterpretation of vernacular practices with a growing interest in sustaining traditional crafts. Materials and construction techniques are taken from the local context. A degree of stylistic eclecticism is prominent. The importance of well-being is reflected in the emphasis on fresh air, natural light and spatial variety to accommodate individual needs. Designs also respond to climatic issues, such as orientation to the sun and prevailing winds.
This seems to be endorsed by Indian architect Rahul Mehrotra, who, when he speaks about the new Indian modern could be describing the entire region. Mehrotra notes that new Indian modern has ’evolved beyond its modernist roots to respond to the locale’, but in so doing recognizes a key aspect of modernism which is invariably overlooked, namely, its core strategy of renewing the tradition through critical reflection. Mehrotra says that these architects ‘recognize that modernism demands a respect for the inherent qualities of building materials, expressiveness of structure, the functional justification for form and the subtle integration of the icons and texture of the larger landscape in which they are set’ (2011: 97).
SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY
In the previous section I looked at what made a home and discussed the idea of how emotional and spiritual sustainability was implicit in the idea of home. Now we need to develop these ideas a little more and see how they inform the selection of the houses presented in this book.
Social sustainability is an issue both within the family and within the wider community. How, for example, does the home sustain the needs of families? How, also, does the home sustain healthy relationships between members of a family? And how does a house interact with its social context to sustain healthy social relationships?
In any society there is a constant negotiation between community and privacy. In Asian societies, in particular, it is probably true to say that, traditionally, community has taken precedence over privacy. The common good has always been promoted over individual needs or desires.
But all this is changing. Rapid urbanization, especially of the main cities, surging economic development, the emergence of an It culture, global financial management, and globalization in general have instigated significant social change throughout Asia. New economic sectors have had an enormous impact on rising levels of education which, as a result, have spawned new professions. These factors have created new demographics, with priorities potentially at odds with traditional society.
the traditional extended family has been complemented by the emergence of the nuclear family: people who remain single by choice or otherwise, couples who have delayed having children, or couples with only one or two children. At the same time, a changing cultural landscape has seen a growing interest in urban engagement, although this is offset to some extent by growing anxiety about real or perceived threats to domestic security, leading to gated and guarded communities or other defensive strategies to protect the home.
‘The extended family continues to sustain itself, but within an ongoing negotiation of greater privacy and independence for individuals within the family.’
These changes in the dynamics of traditional Asian families do not mean that newly urbanized Asia wants to throw out traditional values. What is happening in reality is another version of the conversation-cum-negotiation I have already referred to—and further confirmation that architectural moves do not happen in isolation but as part of a wider context of social and political debate as well as economic diversification.
The extended family thus continues to sustain itself, but within an ongoing negotiation of greater privacy and independence for individuals within the family. There are a number of architectural models for this. On the one hand, there is the single dwelling planned to provide privacy for individuals but pivoting around communal spaces. Then there is a model which breaks this down to a greater or lesser extent by ‘pavilionizing’ the house. This may involve a series of linked pavilions or a family compound with independent pavilions, or even houses clustered around a central, shared court. Another variation is simply to purchase multiple adjacent lots or subdivide one large lot to enable adult children to live next door to their parents and/or siblings.
Within the nuclear family there is, as I noted earlier, a growing respect for the autonomy of children and their particular needs. As long ago as 1938, in The Culture of Cities, Lewis mumford wrote that ‘the child is no less entitled to space than the adult: he must have shelves and cupboards for his toys, room for play and movement, a place for quiet retreat and study, other than his bed. No housing standard is adequate that provides only cubicles or dressing rooms for the child, or forces him into the constant company of adults.’ For the family to be truly sustainable, it is crucial to acknowledge that the world of the child is, despite its dependence on adults, a self-contained world with its own priorities and values. Equally, of course, parents are entitled to their own privacy and autonomy. These issues are addressed in house plans which clearly separate parent and children domains, again with linking communal areas where the family can come together.
The Ekamai house in Bangkok (page 28) illustrates a number of these issues in the one house. The free-flowing L-shaped plan of the ground floor offers direct connection to the garden court and a separate retreat for the couple’s child, while upstairs adult and child domains are at either end connected by a perimeter corridor. At the same time, operable timber shutters connect the garden court with the life of the street outside. In this way, the house contributes to sustaining the character of the precinct without compromising its own privacy and security.
GATED AND GUARDED COMMUNITIES
As a number of the houses in this book are located in gated or guarded communities, we need to look briefly at how this increasingly prevalent phenomenon impacts on social sustainability. The separation of the guarded community from the wider community is delineated but does not involve a physical barrier, merely a security presence. Hence, it remains to some degree a part of the public domain. The gated community, however, is walled off and only authorized entry is permitted, making it private and exclusive.
It is often argued that the phenomenon is inimical to social sustainability. Given that the term includes the word ‘community’, we need to ask whether such developments really create a community or whether they are simply aggregations of dwellings whose long-term consequence is, in fact, alienation—alienation from the wider community, but also alienation for the people living in the gated/guarded communities because of the isolation which results from living in what is basically a suburb without any of the ebb and flow of human activity that typifies an organic community.
Whether gated or guarded, there is inevitably a loss of connection to the broader social world. The standard explanation for gated/guarded communities is fear. The inhabitants are seeking security from a perceived threat of assault and robbery. In some places this may be a very real threat. However, in a place like Singapore the threat is surely minimal. This suggests another motivation for building in a gated/guarded community—status. Research supports this contention, suggesting that ‘exclusivity’ has the double meaning of keeping people out but also signalling social superiority. The reality is, however, that in many places in Asia security is a real concern. In Jakarta, for example, memories of the 1998 riots remain fresh. Moreover, there, as in Kuala Lumpur and Manila, the threat of crime is quite palpable.
This house by Aamer Taher in Sentosa, Singapore (page 114), is angled to maximize natural light.
Every gated community is different from every other one. In many there really is a community, one not just defined by a perimeter wall but by shared values. This might be because the community represents a concentration of people from the same religious community or, as in the case of the R House in Tana Peru at depok outside Jakarta (page 148), there is a concentration of people with university ties. Often it will be the planning of the gated community which helps generate a sense of community where no natural affinities exist, as at the Kubik House in Ipoh, Malaysia (page 50), or at Tanah Teduh in Jakarta (page 160).
A final caveat is the fact that many gated communities are actually quite porous, as are guarded communities, with a constant flow of people and transactions during the day and with full security applied only at night. Space does not allow a fuller discussion of the issue. Suffice it to say that guarded and gated communities come in many different forms and respond to many different imperatives. Depending on how we look at them, and on how they are planned, they can be either sustainable or unsustainable.
CULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY
Without identity, life is simply not sustainable at either the individual or the community level. But identity is a social construct which can only be sustained by continuing connection with a cultural tradition and by constant interrogation in response to external change. The family home is an expression of the identity of those who live in it. It does not exist in isolation, any more than architecture operates in a social vacuum. Notwithstanding globalization, the traditional societies of Southeast Asia are not about to abandon their cultural heritage. But engagement with the global community requires an ongoing negotiation if those communities are not to have their cultural identity compromised.
‘An architecture of place is as much about cultural space as it is physical space.’
Exploring how to live with the climate in a responsible way is an opportunity for the tropical societies of Southeast Asia to refine the contemporary dialectic of identity. An architecture of place is as much about cultural space as it is physical space. The two are, of course, inseparable, a fact highlighted by the many homes, from Bali to Manila, which by virtue of an adopted international style, inescapably reek of inauthenticity. These homes do not belong anywhere unless it is in some fashionable, designosphere.
Abidin Kusno speaks of how young architects, through the Arsitek Muda Indonesia in the 1990s, ‘were more interested in “exploring design” (penjelajahan desain) which they understood as a way of liberating their individual creativity from the hegemony of functionalism and nationalism’ (2011: 87). This liberation is mirrored throughout the region and has meant that architects could reexamine and reinvent traditional practice unclouded by sentimental nationalism or a debased functionalism. It has resulted in an architecture of place which typically uses, where possible, local materials, local craftsmen and local crafts adapted to contemporary use.
The 27 houses in this book reveal a variety of approaches to cultural sustainability. This may be illustrated in the way in which a house interacts with its immediate urban context, or in the way the plan of a house reflects traditional practice. It may be in the way traditional crafts are adapted to new uses, or in the way local materials are used. It may also be in the way interior details provide a sense of continuity in cultural and religious values across generations.
If there is one defining characteristic of culturally sustainable architecture in the region, it is its emphasis on materiality which implies an architecture rooted in the everyday reality of its clients and where they live.
